We have a clear idea of what the crossing looks like, "переходящим проезжую часть по нерегулируемому пешеходному переходу, обозначенному знаками 5.19.1 и 5.19.2

We have a clear idea of what the crossing looks like, "переходящим проезжую часть по нерегулируемому пешеходному переходу, обозначенному знаками 5.19.1 и 5.19.2, а также дорожной разметкой 1.14.1," means that it was a "zebra crossing" marked on the road and with appropriate street signs before it. In Russia, pedestrians have right of way on such a crossing, and drivers are required to be able to stop so that if a pedestrian starts crossing, they can yield (is that the proper term in English road rules?) to that pedestrian - i.e. even if you can't see any people, the marked crossing is considered as a warning to drivers that there might be pedestrians crossing and they must be able to stop and yield there. So in cases of poor road conditions (e.g. ice) and poor visibility, they would be legally required to choose a speed so that they can do so suddenly if needed. This necessity to drive slower given the street signs and conditions is also explicitly mentioned in the court ruling as part of justification of why the defendant is considered guilty. So it's not really an analogy of a person lying on the road, because that's not a "normal" stretch of road - if someone decides to drunkenly crawl across such a pedestrian crossing, then that would be stupid and reckless and dangerous, but legally they still would have right of way and cars would required to stop and yield as if they had a red light.